Measure, model, optimise: Understanding reductionist concepts of value in freshwater governance

Abstract Approaches to freshwater governance frequently focus on the identification, elicitation and measurement of diverse and competing stakeholder ‘values‘ relating to water resources. The categorisation of ‘values’ has politics – it defines the stakeholders involved, legitimises particular ‘ways of knowing’ and empowers certain developmental trajectories over others. This paper examines the emergence of a reductionist freshwater knowledge-governance methodology in New Zealand, and situates it across its epistemic, institutional and political trajectories. The River Values Assessment System (RiVAS) was conceived as a scalar tool to help local authorities assess and rank rivers according to their ability to provide for a given ‘value’ such as swimming, birdlife or irrigation. Its structural foundations emerged from (1) the rise of conservation science methodologies which attempt to create commensurate values for water bodies, (2) the transfer of these methodologies to the realm of social ‘values’ of river systems, and (3) regional authorities’ need for an ‘objective’ metric to defend water allocation decisions in a decentralising regulatory environment. A reductionist framework of value carries implications for governance, including issues around representation (whose values matter?), and risks excluding emergent concepts of place in both biophysical and sociocultural dimensions. To engage with these emerging logics of governance, geographers need to understand their underlying epistemological, institutional and political underpinnings, as well as the management challenges facing agencies. Through understanding the multiple practices that shape knowledge and governance trajectories, we can begin to think about how to practise values governance differently.

[1]  M. Palmer.  Socioenvironmental Sustainability and Actionable Science , 2012 .

[2]  J. Linton.  What Is Water?: The History of a Modern Abstraction , 2010 .

[3]  P. A. Memon,et al.  Towards a New Planning Paradigm? Reflections on New Zealand's Resource Management Act , 1995 .

[4]  B. Biggs,et al.  Macrophytes in Urban Stream Rehabilitation: Establishment, Ecological Effects, and Public Perception , 2006 .

[5]  Jane Elith,et al.  Use of generalised dissimilarity modelling to improve the biological discrimination of river and stream classifications , 2011 .

[6]  Allan Rackham,et al.  The aesthetic value of river flows: an assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers. , 2010 .

[7]  Joan Iverson Nassauer,et al.  Culture and changing landscape structure , 1995, Landscape Ecology.

[8]  Ton H. Snelder,et al.  MULTISCALE RIVER ENVIRONMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 1 , 2002 .

[9]  Leah Gibbs,et al.  “A Beautiful Soaking Rain”: Environmental Value and Water beyond Eurocentrism , 2010 .

[10]  P. J. Boon,et al.  Towards an integrated approach to classifying and evaluating rivers in the UK , 1998 .

[11]  A. Barry,et al.  The anti-political economy , 2002 .

[12]  Robert C. Ward,et al.  Twenty Years of New Zealand’s National Rivers Water Quality Network: Benefits of Careful Design and Consistent Operation 1 , 2011 .

[13]  Zoe Sofoulis,et al.  Everyday Water: cultures in transition , 2006 .

[14]  C. Spash,et al.  Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology , 2009 .

[15]  J. H. O'Keeffe,et al.  An expert system approach to the assessment of the conservation status of rivers , 1987 .

[16]  The application of SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation) to a selection of rivers in Britain , 1998 .

[17]  L. B. Leopold.  Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors among rivers , 1969 .

[18]  Ton H. Snelder,et al.  Is the River Environment Classification an improved landscape-scale classification of rivers? , 2004, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[19]  W. Adams,et al.  Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[20]  James C. Scott,et al.  Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed , 1999 .

[21]  M. Hajer.  Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void , 2003 .

[22]  R. Costanza.  Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services , 2000, Ecosystems.

[23]  Convergence of field survey protocols for SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation) and RHS (River Habitat Survey) , 1998 .

[24]  J. Richardson,et al.  Attributes that Characterize Angling Rivers of Importance in New Zealand, Based on Angler Use and Perceptions , 1992 .

[25]  Paul A. J. M. Boon,et al.  Assessing the conservation value of fresh waters: an international perspective. , 2009 .

[26]  S. Eden,et al.  Reading the river through ‘watercraft’: environmental engagement through knowledge and practice in freshwater angling , 2011 .

[27]  P. J. Boon,et al.  Developing a new version of SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation) , 2002 .

[28]  Gary Brierley,et al.  Social and biophysical connectivity of river systems , 2008 .

[29]  P. J. Boon,et al.  Developing standard approaches for recording and assessing river hydromorphology: the role of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) , 2010 .

[30]  Klaus Hubacek,et al.  Research , part of a Special Feature on Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Governance Competing Structure, Competing Views: The Role of Formal and Informal Social Structures in Shaping Stakeholder Perceptions , 2010 .

[31]  B. Stewart.  Assessing the ecological values of rivers: an application of a multi-criteria approach to rivers of the South Coast Region, Western Australia , 2011, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[32]  S. Jasanoff.  States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[33]  Arild Vatn,et al.  Rationality, institutions and environmental policy , 2005 .

[34]  G. Brierley,et al.  Effectiveness of the river environment classification in the Auckland Region , 2008 .

[35]  K. Fryirs,et al.  Naturalness and Place in River Rehabilitation , 2009 .

[36]  A. Sinclair,et al.  Values and floodplain management: Case studies from the Red River Basin, Canada , 2005 .

[37]  Gary Brierley,et al.  Nature, culture, and the work of physical geography , 2012 .

[38]  Kenneth F. D. Hughey,et al.  Development and Application of the River Values Assessment System for Ranking New Zealand River Values , 2013, Water Resources Management.

[39]  R. Lave.  Fields and Streams: Stream Restoration, Neoliberalism, and the Future of Environmental Science , 2012 .

[40]  John R. Leathwick,et al.  Applying systematic conservation planning principles to palustrine and inland saline wetlands of New Zealand , 2011 .

[41]  K. Fryirs,et al.  What are we monitoring and why? Using geomorphic principles to frame eco-hydrological assessments of river condition. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[42]  Christine Cheyne,et al.  Spatial dimensions of New Zealand's environmental management , 2013 .

[43]  Tony Meppem,et al.  Different ways of knowing: a communicative turn toward sustainability , 1999 .

[44]  S. Sörlin,et al.  Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature , 2013 .

[45]  K. Hughey,et al.  The Use of an Ecologic Classification to Improve Water Resource Planning in New Zealand , 2005, Environmental management.

[46]  B. Biggs,et al.  Ecological characterisation, classification, and modelling of New Zealand rivers: An introduction and synthesis , 1990 .

[47]  K. Collier.  Editorial: The rapid rise of streams and rivers in conservation assessment , 2011 .

[48]  S. Jackson.  Compartmentalising Culture: the articulation and consideration of Indigenous values in water resource management , 2006 .

[49]  J. Urry,et al.  Enacting the social , 2004 .

[50]  Clive L. Spash,et al.  Conceptions Of Value In Environmental Decision-Making , 2000 .

[51]  James Boyd,et al.  What data should we collect? A framework for identifying indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being , 2013 .

[52]  K. Booth,et al.  Monitoring the state of New Zealand rivers: How the River Values Assessment System can help , 2012 .

[53]  Brian Richter,et al.  River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making , 2003 .

[54]  Global perspectives on river conservation: science, policy and practice. , 2000 .

[55]  A. Roberts,et al.  Same river, different values and why it matters , 2011 .

[56]  H Dunn.  Defining the ecological values of rivers: the views of Australian river scientists and managers , 2004 .

[57]  R. Costanza,et al.  SPECIAL ISSUE: The Dynamics and Value of Ecosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services , 2002 .

[58]  David Lowenthal,et al.  Finding valued landscapes , 1978 .

[59]  Nigel J. Willby,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF VARIANTS IN THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT OF GEOMORPHOLOGICALLY BASED CHANNEL TYPES , 2013 .

[60]  Pushpam Kumar.  The Socio-cultural Context of Ecosystem and Biodiversity Valuation , 2012 .

[61]  Angela H. Arthington,et al.  Principles of River Condition Assessment , 2008 .